  Structured coordination across policy sectors (e.g. coordination groups). Full intersectoral coverage of IG issues. 3. Attempt to identify gaps, if any, in order to ascertain what type of recommendations may be needed. Based on the criteria mentioned above, the review attempts to identify possible gaps in the governance of those issues that have been identified. The initial gaps identified by the CG are listed briefly in the database along with their originators. Other possible gaps were identified while the work continued. They are summarised in the database. This report gives a brief account of some of the possible gaps identified in the database. Through a few iterations of analysis, the review identified four major groups of gaps, named as knowledge gaps (insufficient data and awareness of the impact of the Internet on public policy issues), policy gaps (lack of policy instruments such as norms and guidelines, and lack of mechanisms for identifying and adopting policy instruments), implementation gaps (lack of mechanisms for implementing existing policies and rules), and capacity gaps (lack of capacity of stakeholders and actors to actively participate in international Internet public policy mechanisms). Structure of the report The report is structured according to the classification of the issues in the seven broad clusters discussed. Consequently, following this introduction, Chapters 2‒8 present the main findings of the review. Each chapter presents the analysis of the issue included in the respective cluster, the key findings on the mechanisms addressing the issue, and the status of those mechanisms. An attempt is also made to identify potential gaps in those mechanisms. Chapter 9 presents the main conclusions, describes the main challenges encountered in the course of the work, and discusses potential areas for continuation. 5